From: Pete Resnick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 9:25 PM To: IESG <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; General Area Review Team <[email protected]> Subject: GenART post-telechat comment on draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-08
Greetings, I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other participants comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq. Document: draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility-03 Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review Date: 2016-09-06 IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-01 Summary: This is an odd post-telechat review, but I think the draft has gone from "Ready" to "Ready with an issue" because of an IESG Eval change. Details: I did not get to my post-Last Call GenART review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-mobility until after the telechat. Had I done so, which would have been on version -05, I would have said "Looks fine to me". However, I happened to look at the latest version, figuring I would just confirm. I found that a change was made in response to an IESG Evaluation comment from Suresh https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tram/SYVAXc1dF6xUcm0OQ9xyuaknJco: ________________________________ COMMENT: * Section 3.2.1 The section on sending a Refresh when the IP address does not change needs a little bit more tightening. Given that the server would reject the request with a mobility ticket in this case, it would be good to put in an explicit restriction to not add the mobility ticket in the following statement OLD: If a client wants to refresh an existing allocation and update its time-to-expiry or delete an existing allocation, it will send a Refresh Request as described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5766] NEW: If a client wants to refresh an existing allocation and update its time-to-expiry or delete an existing allocation, it MUST send a Refresh Request as described in Section 7.1 of [RFC5766] and MUST NOT include a MOBILITY-TICKET attribute. I'm not sure if the "MUST NOT" in the latter part of the sentence is correct: Since the server will reject it anyway, I don't see the harm in including the attribute that the "MUST NOT" implies, but perhaps this is belt-and-braces protocol description. On this point, I can't complain too much. [TR] "MUST NOT" is required to prevent the client from sending the request with the ticket which will be rejected by the server and the client will have to again re-try the request without the ticket. However, I believe Suresh was incorrect in suggesting the first "MUST", and it should be removed. There is no harm being prevented here. "If a client wants X, it MUST send Y" is absolutely no different protocol-wise from "If a client wants X, it will send Y". The "MUST" is a misuse. I believe that this change should be undone before publication. [TR] I can the update the line; including Suresh to see if he has any objections. -Tiru pr -- Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
